John Bolton to be target of citizen's arrest at Hay Festival
By Stephen Adams, Arts Correspondent


George Monbiot, the journalist and activist, is planning the action because he believes Mr Bolton is a "war criminal".

He said he was surprised that Mr Bolton would be allowed to "swim through the politest of polite soirees � which is of course Hay."

Mr Bolton, who was the American ambassador to the UN from August 2005 to January 2006, is due to talk at the Hay-on-Wye literary festival at 6.30pm on international relations.

Mr Monbiot, a columnist for The Guardian newspaper, plans to detain him as he steps off stage at the end of his talk. He said he was prepared to jump on stage and perform the citizen's arrest there if necessary.

He claimed Mr Bolton was "instrumental in preparing and initiating the Iraq war by disseminating false claims through the State Department" while he was under-secretary of state for arms control.

Mr Monbiot, who took part in a debate at Hay on Saturday entitled "Defeat: Why They Lost Iraq", has been a fierce critic of the decision to launch the 2003 invasion.

He said he had formally notified police of his intention of performing a citizen's arrest.

Mr Monbiot said: "This is the one opportunity we have, because he is mingling with the public, which doesn't happen very often."

He added: "I can't think of another case where someone who has been instrumental in planning the war has been exposed to the public, so I'm taking the opportunity.

"John Bolton was pushing for the Iraq war long before he became part of the administration."

Explaining his motivation for carrying out what will be a purely symbolic gesture, Mr Monbiot said: "Many people accept that the launching of the Iraq war was an international crime, but no one has yet been prepared to act on it by arresting one of the perpetrators."

Peter Florence, director of the Hay Festival, said Mr Monbiot�s attempt at a citizen�s arrest would be �completely unlawful�.

He said: "The Hay Festival has sought the advice of both police and lawyers, and has been unequivocally assured that a citizen�s arrest, or an attempt to instigate a citizen�s arrest, would be completely unlawful in these circumstances.

"The Hay Festival remains committed to providing a platform for speakers from a diverse range of political and social backgrounds.

"However much we might take issue with a speaker�s beliefs or opinions, we remain steadfast in our intention to provide them with a safe and free environment in which their views might be discussed with others.

"The Hay Festival encourages visitors to voice their opinions, but also requires that, in their expression, they respect both the law and the speaker."

John Bolton is a great guy, too bad straight-shooters, non-politically correct people aren't welcome in Washington, the UN, and are eaten alive by the wimpy, nose in air press.

Regardless of whether I like his politics or not, it should be interesting to see how this one turns out.

I'll admit it, at first I got confused and thought you meant they were going to arrest Michael Bolton, the musician. That really needs to be done, just so I don't have to hear any more elevator music.

It is nice to see someone willing to at least attempt to show the crime that is the war in Iraq. Very few Americans are willing to say anything bad about that war, for fear of being publically berated. "You don't support the troops" is always thrown out when you say that. I've even heard "you're for supporting terrorism then, why not give your taxes to Bin Laden." Like it is un-patriotic to point out when your government is in error.

I want proof that this war is legal. Will someone please show me the declaration of war, drafted by congress, listing specific grievences against the Iraqi people, and there government. I didn't think so, because such a document does not exist. We sent troops to occupy and disposess the government of a recognized and soveriegn nation. We didn't even have a reason, we just did it.

Come on. The numerous UN Resolutions broken alone, are easy enough to use to dispatch that statement. Countries went to war for much less in times past. Look at WWI. Some quite insignificant guy gets wacked and all heck breaks loose on that excuse.

Our Federal government has broken some UN resolutions of their own, does that mean that China has the moral authority to come in, occupy us and depose of our Government and sovereignty?

Micheal Bolton? LOL!

Ummm, has anyone here, but just me listened to his Hair band rock stuff?

Saddam was our asset, he was disposable the moment he got the idea that he was actually the one in control.

Bring it. Thing is, if you got more bombs and guns you can do anything you want. When you are protecting half the world and have been for decades you pretty much can do what you want. Real Politik. It's not Politically Correct, but most things in this world shouldn't be.

Well history shows that WWI was started mainly do to too many alliance treaties between nations of Europe. All those back room deals really caused a mess. ArchDuke Ferdinan was not some insignificant man either. He was the ruler of the Austrio-Hungrian Empire, a nation that covered about 1/4 of Europe at the time. Sure the entire continent got involved in a civil war, that goes to show you how stupid rushing into war is.

The United States entered WWI because the nations allied with Germany started sinking our merchant shipping. Most people forget that we supplied both sides before our entrance into the war. But we had specific grievences to point to when we entered that war. Killing of civilians in international waters. Destruction of merchant shipping from non-combatent nations. Not to mention espionage. The Kiaser had sent documents to the government of Mexico asking for a southern invasion of the U.S. to keep us from entering the European conflict. We intercepted the communication and the President of Mexico at the time felt fit to turn copies over to us.

We had no such grievences against the State of Iraq. Broken UN resolutions, we do that. And we are not the UN's army, our Army should be used to defend the United States, not some silly doctrine by an ineffectual world organization. Plus, we are supposed to be a beacon of freedom to the world. Yet our imperialistic policies have made us look like an oppressor on the world stage. We are supposed to be a counrty of peace, we even call ourselves "peacekeepers" in places like Korea, Bosnia, and Somalia. So we shouldn't be starting any war, we should just finish them.

Sadam Hussien was no threat to any American that did not willingly step onto his counrty's soil. He would rattle his saber and make the world think that he had a powerful military, but look where he lived. He needed to throw that idea that he was powerful about just to keep his own people from doing exactly what they are doing now, only to us. Plus he had to make a big show for countries like Iran, Turkey, and possibly Syria. The man was ruling a country of religous zealots in a very unstable part of the world, a show of power was called for from him. Every nation in the world knows the United States is powerful, we don't need to do that kind of thing.

Okay, we don't have more guns, bombs and soldiers than either Russia or China. We've used too many in Iraq. So you'd have no problem with one of them coming over here and running the place by your logic.

And we protect half the world because our policies for such things date back to the 50's when we were tricked into being fearful of communism. It is not the job of the American people to police the world, he** I don't even know what the laws are in Madagascar how can I police that place?

Nothing changes, politicians make the those that scare easily fearfull, and then they can run roughshod over the few that actually take the time to question the line of bull***t that is being fed to the public from Washington. Same in 1950 as it is today. Nice to know that we haven't learned anything in this country in five decades.

I've made the argument numerous times, and my call of Real Politik in the other thread (forget which one, its one near the top...lol) goes to the point. Realization is that the UN Resolutions are OUR Resolutions. We are the UN for without us, it collapses. The Intelligence Services, many of them, messed up big time. We thought he had WMD and thus for our own security and safety, which includes the flow of oil, we needed to deal with that bad seed we allowed to be planted and thrive for more than a decade since he last created absolute chaos in the region. Our lack of real action against him gave power and reason for Iran to spread and become the new weed of the Middle East.

The Middle East IS our own security. Reason being that they have our life blood, oil. The Reality is we absolutely need it, ever flowing, with no even slight disruption. Without that we will fall apart, because the Environmentalist lobby (the lobbyist for that given free passes by media) has crippled us. And, the politicians kissing their feet. We have plenty of oil domestic, not in Anwar, which everyone will point to, but our massive, trillions of barrels of oil of shale oil we have. And, to say no one should go to war for oil is a RIDICULOUSLY statement. Yep, totally not politically correct, but oh so true. Cut off foreign oil, might as well just pull our lifesupport plug.

Saddam was a thorn in the side and he had to be dealt with, sooner or later. Sooner was a better option for we had the military there to get going. We were never going to change Afghanistan with their poppy craze and high altitude wormhole society where the nuts could crawl into holes in mountains that stretched miles. The Middle East and Northern Africa will be the place of the next World War. China has moved into town and Iran has moved it's proxy army into Sudan, as China has forces there as well (hidden among the oil trade).

We had no idea Saddam was waving a dull sword. The sword he waved, of such blatant and possibly dangerous defiance, in a region where on each side and sides next to them are full of nationalist ideologes or religious zealots, we have to assert ourselves. Oil IS worth going to war for, because with it cut off the world goes nuts, the world market collapses, tensions rise to unprecedented levels. It is essentially Archduke Ferdinand being assassinated, Hitler rolling over borders with tanks.

I've skipped around so much in this post I apologize, might come off as a bit of a rambling man. It's been a long day. But, thank you for a worthwhile read, with obvious educated thought in it that often lacks here. Hope my points came off well enough, but a great discussion can come at another time.

Air Force. Navy. That's all I need to say. Both have little of either, and greatly weaker than our own. Both of our services in little use. Plus we also now have a highly trained and experienced military that have fought and done incredibly well in guerilla style combat, which is the harshest types of combat for a superior force to fight....and to win. Highly trained, experienced officers with a wealth of reserves and draftees should true war break out.

I have to disagree, the resources of another sovereign nation is not ours to demand or control, that'd be like Africa laying claim to our Wheat crops being theirs, because their people need food.

If we hadn't allowed certain lobbyists groups to push for blocking alternative fuel resources 10 years ago or had pitched a fit while Petroleum and Automotive companies bought alternative technologies and shelved them, we would have a heck of alot more options. If we had demanded that our politician stopped selling their votes to the highest bidder we might not be looking at a foriegn policy that holds us up to propping up dictators and invading the nations that are oil rich, while ignoring the real tragedy going on in other nations.

"I've skipped around so much in this post I apologize, might come off as a bit of a rambling man. It's been a long day. But, thank you for a worthwhile read, with obvious educated thought in it that often lacks here. Hope my points came off well enough, but a great discussion can come at another time."

There's nothing better to me than an intelligent debate,to everyone in this thread thanks for the engaging posts!

Actually China has the worlds largest Air Force, and they will be getting Nuclear Powered air craft carriers on line in about two years. Which means we won't dominate the seas anymore. While we may have planes, we do not have the ordinance to be able to take on either of those nations. I doubt we could take on India's Navy with our military scattered accross all six major continents.

Look it's nice to love your country, and have a great respect for our past military might. But we aren't that country anymore. Where were the newest generation when we went to war. Dec 8 1941 over one million men and women joined the armed forces, our government can't even keep soldiers home for more than 18 months without having to redeploy overseas. Has anyone turned in metal, not for resale or recycling value, but so they can be turned into weapons of war. Why haven't we shut down our auto makers to build replacement parts like we did in WWII?

We are not the great and powerful United States of the 40's and 50's. We've lost two wars in a row for god's sake. We rested on our laurels, got to into shopping and worrying if we hurt someone's feelings. We didn't even have a real war. I'd of called the whole thing Operation Sheet of Glass. Because when you heat sand to that temperature, it makes glass. Charlemain said the following to my recollection: "In order to beat any enemy, you must first destroy the will of the populace to wage war. Then your enemies armies will fall." That translates into civillian deaths. It is why for all but the last 150 years of recorded history soldiers were allowed to rape the female populace. When you fight a war, you can't do it with the rules and regulations of normal peacetime society. You have to get bloody, and must be prepared for the death of your own, as well as your enemies, sons and daughters.

"To help meet projected U.S. energy demand growth of 34% in the next two decades, U.S. oil and gas companies invested $98 billion from 2000 through 2005 on emerging energy technologies in the North American market3(Figure ES-1). This expenditure is 73% of the estimated total of $135 billion spent by U.S. companies and the Federal government." - http://www.factsonfuel.org/emerging_energy/index.html

They've spent 98 billion towards alternative energy thus far, in the span or 2000-2005. I've heard estimates that one company alone overall has spent 100 billion towards the issue. So, to say they aren't invested in it is wrong.

And, about the it isn't ours to demand. Real Politik buddy, that's where I'll direct every comment, and I'd like to see Africa try :D

The role of the state SHOULD BE (underline and bold that one) the defense and prosperity of its own citizens FIRST. Since they won't tap our trillion+ of own oil reserve they better do something about it before we dry up and are screwed. Want us to lose a war in no time, gas tanks running dry.

Recruitment and re-enlistment are meeting every goal first of all. We have the recruitment slipups from time to time, but they are most often met. If there was REAL war, which the Iraq War and Afghanistan are not, for they provide no real threat to the US citizen, desire to join will be low. Just like WWII, when the Japs hit Pearl Harbor enlistments went crazy. In a poll I remember reading 70% plus hoped by wars end they could kill one Jap. Talk about not politically correct...lol.

If we were truly threatened, the sleeping giant will be awakened again. This is not real war. To compare the differences between Iraq/Afghanistan and WWII in terms of civilian response is like comparing apples and oranges, they are so incredibly not similar. However, should Red China or a new Red Russia rise and truly threaten with war we shall get a war footing in the US. Your whole argument is based around the US citizen response differences to war between now and WWII. The differences of wars make it impossible to make such comparisons.

Okay, about Air Forces. Let's say war was about to occur, we would spit out F-22 Raptors in rapid succession. They would slaughter any other Air Force in the world. I remember hearing where 2 F-22 Raptors went up again like 15 F-15s and the 2 F-22 Raptors scored 15 kills with the F-15s never even knowing what hit them. The F-22 are so vastly superior to anything else out there they would lay waste to anything in the air.

With our stealth bombers and stealth fighters F-22 we have absolute air supremacy. Most of China's and India's planes are from the 60s and 70s for goodness sake.

According to CNN

Why not to fear China's military

"Its 2.8 million-person army is the world's largest but is poorly trained and equipped.

Its 8,500 tanks are slow, small and out-of-date.

The 4,000 fighter planes in the Chinese air force are mostly from the 1960s and 1970s and lack modern avionics.

Its navy's 61 submarines and 54 surface ships are capable of little more than coastal patrols." - http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9905/28/china.military/

Our Navy is second to none. There is nothing to even question here. Russia is second behind us, and like China, they are sailing around stuff way out of date.

Oh, I didn't mean to say they haven't invested in it recently, if it came off that way, thats not the intent, but only since 2000? We've known that an oil crisis could screw us since the energy crisis in the 70's, it's widely known that petroleum and certain automotive interests would buy up technology that would have helped make us far less dependent on foriegn fuels and fossil fuels as a whole. Maybe Congress ought to demand that these companies unearth those technologies for the good of the country, or kick them the hell out and let the market decide who inherits the industry, it's not like the government shouldn't have that right, they've been bailing out the Auto industry here for a while at the expense of the people.

You're right about the role of the state, however, we both know, whether its dems or reps in power, this Government has not had the people's best interests at heart, instead they've had their personal pocketbooks and expanding the false notion that we need their guidance in more and more aspects of our lives.

The article is only talking about the span of 5 years, from 2000-2005, but they have been investing for far longer than that. They know that they will always be the energy supplier, they care not what that energy is. They are a business needing profit to survive, wherever it comes from as long as they supply it they'll be happy to go whatever way is needed. I've been easy on the oil companies for they've brought us so much more good than bad, though everyone only wants to look to the bad.

Plus, everyone is seemingly so hateful against them but the oil companies profit margin is so incredibly low compared to most other companies. And, we've put many handcuffs on them as well, the government has become far too intrusive, laissez-faire would have allowed for such greater advancements. I heard a report awhile back, they were talking about drilling going on in the North Dakota oil reserves. As long as oil is, don't quote me on this, but I think it was about $60 per barrel of oil they'd make profit and be able to sustain. That's insane, tap our HUGE reserves, knock it down to $75 per barrel from its current price if you'd like and everyone would cheer you. Then they would get angry at who deserves it, the government and environmentalist lobbies.

We need to build nuclear powerplants and tap domestic oil. We'd be energy dependent. But not going to happen with this ridiculous green movement that is a pyramid scheme.

Just found this article on the drudgereport:

"Meanwhile, the world's leading producers say oil is too expensive and they plan to increase supplies.

A source at Opec said its 13 members were uncomfortable with the current price of crude, which last week hit a record $135 a barrel.

Based on present supply and demand, he said it should be fetching $60-$70 a barrel." - Full Sky News article - http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1317363,00.html

----

Well THAT is certainly good news, if the source is reliable. Hopefully that range is correct and the price for a barrel plummets.

I hate to criticize CNN... no I don't CNN is wrong, at least about China's submarine capabilities.

China sub secretly stalked U.S. fleet

http://www.americasnewspaper.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=15B40AE3721549B9AC7702574432B61A